DONALD TRUMP’S AND HILLARY CLINTON’S INTERRUPTIONS IN PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES

The current study explores types and functions of interruptions of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton during the US presidential debates in 2016. Data collected from Donald Trump’s and Hillary Clinton’s speech in the debates were transcribed and analyzed to find types and functions of interruptions by both of the candidates. The results of the conversational analysis display that Donald Trump dominates the interruptions by applying a substantially greater number of interruptions consisting of three different types of interruptions. Butting-in Interruptions were applied by both as the biggest number of interruptions. Data analysis also demonstrates that intrusive functions appear much more frequently compared to the collaborative functions of interruptions applied by the male and female presidential candidates. Discussion as to why such phenomena are noticeable in the data concludes the paper.


INTRODUCTION
Political campaign often becomes a thought-provoking topic to discuss nowadays. It can be in the form of political debate, in which the candidates argue with each other when the moderator asks several questions in front of the audience. Freeley and Steinberg (2009) state that debate as a process that involves formal dialogue on a particular topic through arguments delivery can be used to make a decision on a certain policy or employed to lead people's opinion to clear way of thinking. Besides, debate needs at least two parties who state their different opinions and provide reasons for their arguments against each other. Thus, debate critical thinking is essential and the audiences must be thoughtful in evaluating the contestants of the debate.
As one category of debate, political debate has some features that should be fulfilled (Benoit, 2007). First, it contains an action of comparing something. Second, the nominees must be put in separated blocs. Third, the candidates may have political stand that is different from the opponents. Next, the candidates are allowed to attack others, defend themselves and acclaim certain proof. Last, the topics of campaign may be developed around policy and policy making.
A number of research have focused on political campaign and/or debate by using different approaches and theories, for example, Arlt, Rauchfleisch and Schäfer (2019), Finlayson (2017), Valkering, Nemčok, Matu, and Spac (2018), Octaviani (2014), Adawiyah (2017), Shabrina (2016), Putra (2016), Anggraini (2018), and Natalia, Subekti, and Mirahayuni (2019). The first three are instances of studies on political debate whose focus are non-linguistic and rhetoric, while the rest are investigations that put emphasis on rhetoric and linguistic analysis. Octaviani (2014) used Toulmin's Argumentation Model (1958) of claim, ground and warrants to analyze debate document using cogency analysis, soundness analysis and strength level analysis. The results of the data analysis displaying three conditions of argument (strong, weak and very weak) reveal that Obama defeats Romney in the debate since his strong arguments appear more frequently than those of Romney. Besides, Obama develops most of his arguments in the form of reasonable arguments the nature of which ensures the cogency and the soundness of the inference.
Another study by Adawiyah (2017) examined modalities used by Mega vs. SBY and Obama vs. Romney in political debate in Indonesia and USA. Politicians were found out to incline to employ high value of modality to show high devotion toward certain outlook or claim. The American politicians are more open to be the subject of assessment compared to the Indonesian politicians.
Moreover, Shabrina (2016) analyzed the persuasive speech of Hillary Clinton on her political campaign. The results of her study demonstrate all persuasive strategies proposed by Aristotle, that is, Ethos, Pathos, and Logos were applied by Hillary Clinton. Hillary showed ethos by giving motivation, describing future project, and showing her care. Logos were applied by Hillary by giving facts of various phenomena and showing her consistency.
In the same year, Putra (2016) analyzed the power relation in the political campaign of D. Trump. The results of the study describe that, as one of the nominees, Trump shows his power relation to other parties by employing discursive strategy that delegitimizes his opponent by victimizing, underestimating or discriminating her to aggrandize himself and make himself look more powerful than her.
Still related to Trump, Anggraini (2018) analyzed the ideology of Donald Trump using transitivity process of Halliday. The study reveals that Donald Trump applied the six categories of transitivity process, namely, material, mental, relational, behavioral, verbal and existential process. All of Donald Trump's utterances reflect his ideology of democratic-capitalist.
A study analyzing data from both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton was conducted by Natalia, Subekti, and Mirahayuni (2019). They investigated turn-taking strategies of both candidates in the First Presidential Debate in 2016. Added with some data from BBC World Debate, the research found out that three main strategies (taking the turn, holding the turn, and yielding the turn) were apparent in the debates. The first strategy was the most dominant one followed by the second and the third.
All of the above-mentioned studies taking political campaign and debate as their data source have focused on quality of argument, persuasive strategy, power relation and ideology underlying the utterances of the political figures. None of the studies have focused on interruptions that often occur during debates. The study by Natalia, Subekti, and Mirahayuni (2019) indeed obtained findings related to interruptions as a specific type of turn-taking strategy that appeared to be the most often employed by the debaters in their efforts to retain the turn. However, it merely takes a small portion in the study. An investigation specifically intended to uncover interruptions in political debates in a more detailed way is needed.
As people have different conversational styles, utterances perceived by others as interruptions might not be intended to intrude others' speeches. Otherwise, it might be intended to offer help or other positive purposes. Therefore, the current research attempts to analyze interruptions in the US presidential debate in 2016 with Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee and Donald Trump as the Republican nominee to see whether the interruptions are used to intrude another speaker to delegitimize him/her or to offer a help.
Indeed, interruption has become the focus of study of some researchers. First, Larasati (2014) focused her study on the interruption in Modern Family season 1 TV series. She analyzed kinds and functions of interruptions. Simple interruption is found to be the highest type of interruption and butting-in interruption is the lowest one. Regarding function of interruption, disagreeing is the highest function of interruption found in the film, while clarifying is the lowest, which is only 1.76%.
Secondly, an analysis of interruptions in Oprah Winfrey Talkshow was administered by Anindya (2014) who examined the success or failure of the interruptions. The result of her study focusing on TV talkshow is almost similar to that of Larasati (2014) that collected data from movie series in TV. Faizah and Kurniawan (2016) also made an investigation on overlaps and interruptions between male and female in Mata Najwa. The study revealed that female speakers show higher frequency of interruptions than the male ones, both in competitive and cooperative interruptions.
Following Faizah and Kurniawan's (2016) research, this study conducted further explorations to see whether the female speaker Hillary Clinton tends to interrupt in the presidential debate compared to Donald Trump. Hence, this study is aimed to identify types of interruptions and functions of interruptions performed by D. Trump and H. Clinton in the first, second, and third presidential debates in the US general election in 2016 by using conversational analysis.

LITERATURE REVIEW
An interruption is an unorganized discussion where the speaker and the interlocutor turn in the conversation as they want without really considering the principles of effective conversation. Beattie (1982) explains that in a conversation there should be only one speaker at a time; if there are more than one speaker talking at the same time, there would be discrepancy from the turn-taking rule. Sack, Schegloff and Jefferson (1974) argued that interruption is a conversation which is not really organized well. It means that there is no coordination between speaker and listener so that there is an interruption in it. There will not be any interruption in a conversation which runs properly. Li (2001) further explains that a perfect conversation may occur when the listeners understand the right time they are allowed to turn in a conversation. Hence, it can be said that an interruption is a messy conversation when both speaker and listener do not understand each other or do not want to follow the rule of turn-change in a conversation.
Ferguson (in Beattie, 1982) divides interruptions into several categories. Simple interruption is the first kind which appears when the interrupter jumps in when the first speaker is finishing his/her sentences and the other speaker stops his/her utterances. Second type of interruption is overlapping interruption. It occurs when both speakers talk concurrently. Here, the first speaker keeps on talking while the interrupter tries to take the floor.
Butting-in interruption, as the third kind of interruption, occurs when the interrupter aims to intrude the current speaker and take the turn. Yet, the interruptee keeps talking and does not care with the interrupter. Silent interruption is the last type of interruption that takes place when the first speaker stops talking before finishing his/her utterances. The interrupter takes the floor when he/she stops his/her utterances.
With regard to functions of interruption, Murata (1994) mentions two functions, they are, cooperative and intrusive interruption. Murata (1994) argued that cooperative interruption is kind of assisting the speaker by coordinating the content in a conversation. Whereas, intrusive interruption is kind of interruptions that put threats on the other conversant which interfere the flow and subject matter of the ongoing discussion.
Furthermore, each function has several subfunctions in it. According to Kennedy and Camden (1983), there are three subfunctions in cooperative interruption, those are, agreement, assistance and clarification. Agreement is employed to show an approval, realization, support or comprehension of the speaker's utterances. The speaker interrupts by, first, putting his or her idea which is related to the topic. Second, assistance happens when the interrupter helps the speaker when he/she confused about something by giving a clue in the forms of words, phrases or sentences to the speaker to complete his or her utterance. Last, clarification as one type of cooperative interruption is the interruption made by the listener to elucidate what the speaker said before. It happens since the interlocutor wants clearer explanation.
Moreover, Kennedy and Camden (1983) stated four subfunctions of intrusive interruption, that is, disagreement, floor taking, topic change and tangentialization. In this case, disagreement happens when the interrupter interferes the conversation because he or she disagrees with what the speaker has said, the interrupter then adds his/her ideas when s/he makes an interruption to the conversation. Floor taking is the kind of interruption that happens when the interrupter develops the topic of the speaker by stealing the topic from the speaker but he/she inserts his/her own ideas. Then, topic change means the interrupter is more insistent than the speaker in the discussion where the interrupter alter and determine the topic of talk. Last, tangentialization is the kind of awareness of the interlocutor to summarize the speaker's information to avoid unwanted information.
Due to the complexities of Ferguson's (in Beattie, 1982) concept of the interruption types, it is used as framework in data analysis of Trump's and Clinton's kinds of interruptions. Meanwhile, in analyzing the functions of interruption, the researchers are deeply indebted to Murata (1994) and Kennedy and Camden (1983).

METHOD
The data of the current research were in the forms of utterances of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton collected from the video of the first, the second and the third US presidential debates between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton on 26 September 2016, 9 October 2016 and 19 October 2016 respectively. The data were downloaded from YouTube, especially, the NBC News Channel at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=855Am6ovK7s, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRlI2SQ0Ueg, and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smkyorC5qwc. The duration of the first debate video is 1 hour 38 minutes, the second debate is 1 hour 32 minutes, and the last one is 1 hour 55 minutes. Overall, there are five hours five minute-length video data.
Conversation Analysis (CA) was applied in the data analysis. CA has been applied by previous researchers, such as, Larasati (2014) and Jannah (2014) who applied CA in film, Faizah and Kurniawan (2016), Ismaliyah (2015), and Haris and Mirahayuni (2010) who analyzed talkshows using CA, and Cantrell (2014) who applied CA in casual conversations. In the current research, CA was employed to understand details of conversation of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, especially, when interruptions occur.
Some points must be noticed in CA, such as, choice of words, pauses, overlaps, interruption and other details of conversation. This study tried to investigate interruptions in Trump's and Hillary's utterances through careful analysis of the turn-taking and sequential structure of the debate Hutchby, 1998;Levinson, 1983;Sack, 1984;Schegloff, 1984;Wei, 2002). After the data were transcribed, the data were selected very carefully by looking at words, structure, intonation, pace, overlapping utterances and highlighted all the interruption of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Codes were also put in the highlighted utterances to identify each type of the interruptions. Classifying was done afterwards which enabled the researchers to count types and functions of interruptions by both Trump and Clinton.

FINDINGS
This part presents types and functions of interruptions made by nominees of the US presidential debates in 2016, that is, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. The data show that out of the seventy-six interruptions, Donald Trump makes a lot higher frequency of interruptions (91%) compared to Hillary (9%). To understand kinds of interruptions made by the different sex candidates and whether they have the same intentions when interrupting another speaker, the types and functions of interruptions of both candidates are presented as follows.

Types of Interruption
In addition to having more interruptions as many as sixty-nine occurrences, Donald Trump, in fact, also applied more kinds of interruptions compared to Hillary Clinton, who produced only seven interruptions, as shown in Figure 1. While Trump applied Simple Interruptions (16%), Butting-in Interruption (65%) and Overlapping Interruption (10%), Hillary only used the first two (4% and 5% respectively). Butting-in Interruptions were most frequently applied by both, followed by Simple Interruptions, although Trump used the Butting-in Interruptions in much bigger quantity compared to Hillary. Silent interruption of Ferguson (in Beattie, 1982) was not applied by both. Hence, Trump's use of interruptions dominates in all of the three types of interruptions.

Donald Trump's Types of Interruption
This part illustrates the use of three kinds of interruptions by Donald Trump, namely simple interruptions, butting-in interruption and overlapping interruption. The data above exhibit Trump's simple interruption which was exerted when Hillary communicates her economic policy and the argument supporting it. Trump abruptly interrupts her to seek clarification even before she concludes her sentences. Trump is impatient and does not want Hillary to continue her statement. The interruption forces Hillary to directly stop her argument and listen to Trump's questions. Here, Trump takes Hillary's turn powerfully that makes her become silent. Thus, Trump's simple interruption is straightforwardly performed by cutting Hillary's words and imposing his own questions to Hillary.

Butting-in Interruption
Butting-in Interruption happens when a speaker attempts to interfere the first conversant and grab the turn to speak; however, the interruptee continues talking and overlooks the interrupter. This kind of interruption performed by Trump occurs 49 times during Hillary's turn. Butting-in Interruption done by Donald Trump is apparent in the data above when Hillary is still communicating her explanation about her strategies in realizing prosperous country by paying more attention on job growth. She also reiterates how financial crisis has caused job lost among people, and she also offers approaches to prevent multinational companies from exiting America. When Hillary is still presenting her argument, she is interrupted by Trump. However, unlike her response to the simple interruption mentioned in Excerpt 1, Hillary ignores Trump's interruption. She keeps on asserting her argument by saying that nine million people failed to keep their work and position, five million people are kicked out from their homes, and each family lost their thirteen trillion dollars during the financial crisis in 1930s. Hence, in the example above, Hillary faces Trump's Butting-in Interruption by merely ignoring it and continuing her arguments.
Looking at the big number of the Donald Trump's Butting-in Interruption, which is, 65% of all interruptions in the debate, we can say that Hillary Clinton cannot be easily attacked by Trump's interruptions. She is, more often than not, ignoring Trump's interruptions. She succeeds in finishing her explanation to support her argument despite Trump's interruptions.

Overlapping Interruption
This happens when the first speaker and the interrupter speak at the same time. Excerpt 3 shows the example of overlapping interruptions. The data above illustrate Trump's interruption, "who give that name? For the first who give that name?" that is overlapping Hillary's utterances, "You've proposed and approach them for billion dollar tax benefit .....". When Hillary is delivering her argument about loophole in Trump's proposal related to tax policy, Trump interrupts her. When she is still attacking Trump's proposal, he jumps in, and both of them are speaking at the same time. None of them stops that compels both of them continue speaking concurrently until they finish their utterances.

Hillary Clinton's Types of Interruption
This section exemplifies Hillary Clinton's Simple and Butting-in Interruptions. Out of 9% of the interruptions made by Hillary Clinton, 4% is Simple Interruption and 5% is Butting-in Interruption. This shows that from the very small number of interruptions done by Hillary, less than half of it is accepted by Trump by dropping his own turn and letting Hillary take the turn. Slightly more than half of Hillary's interruption is responded by Trump by keeping his turn and does not surrender to Hillary's attack through the small number of interruptions.

Simple Interruption
An example of Simple Interruption done by Hillary to Trump is apparent in the following data.

Excerpt 4 Trump : Who called it gold standard of trades? He said it's the finest deal you've ever seen [.....] Hillary : [No. Well Donald I know you live in your own reality, but that is not the facts. The facts are, I did say, I hoped it would be a good deal]
[the NBC News Channel, 21:31] Similar to Excerpt 1, Excerpt 4 also illustrates an interruption that is responded by the speaker's closure of her utterances and the interrupter's turn taking in the debate. In Excerpt 4 above, Hillary Clinton's interruption 'No' stops Trump's delivery of argument about an economic policy before he actually finishes his argument. With Hillary's 'No' interruption, Donald Trump opts to stop and gives the turn to Hillary who continues saying, "Well Donald I know you live in your own reality, but that is not the facts. The facts are, I did say, I hoped it would be a good deal."

Butting-in Interruption
Excerpt 5  Hillary's butting-in interruption appears in the data above. The interruption is ignored by Trump so that she cannot seize the floor. This occurs when Donald Trump is conveying his argument on how to fight ISIS. Before Trump ends his opinions, Hillary intrudes him with her words, "We're not". Sadly, Trump disregards Hillary's interference, and keeps arguing until he ends his message.

Functions of Interruption
Based on data analysis on Trump's and Hillary's utterances, it is disclosed that out of the four intrusive sub-functions of interruptions suggested by Murata (1994), that is, disagreement, floor taking, topic change and tangentialization, there are only two sub-functions of the intrusive interruptions that are apparent, they are, disagreement and floor taking. Meanwhile, with regard to the collaborative functions of interruption, there is only one sub-function applied, that is, clarification. Kennedy and Camden's (1983) sub-functions of agreement and assistance cannot be found in the data. Figure 2 also reveals that the functions of interruptions that exist in the data tend to be intrusive rather than collaborative. The intrusive subfunctions shown in Figure 2 are disagreement (48 occurrences or 63%) and floor taking (26%) in which Trump far outnumbers Hillary in the first sub-function--the only sub-function performed by Hillary. The only collaborative sub-function noticeable in the data is clarification (11%) which is performed by Trump.

Donald Trump's Function of Interruptions
Trump applied disagreement and floor-taking (intrusive function) as well as clarification (cooperative function) in his interruptions. Detailed examples are given in Excerpts 6 and 7. A simple interruption is applied by Trump to intrude Hillary's turn in the above data. This happens when Hillary is conveying her argument about how to improve the economic situation. However, Trump interrupts Hillary before she concludes her explanation to express his different opinion by stating "but you have no plan." Hence, Trump interrupts her to disapprove Hillary's argument and accuse her that she does not have any strategy.

Floor Taking
Floor taking is the interruption where the intruder elaborates the speaker's topic by taking the topic from the speaker but he/she does not change the topic.

Excerpt 7
Hillary : "We also have to look at how e help families balance. The responsibilities at home and the responsibilities at business. So we have a very robust set of plans and people have looked at both of our plans have concluded that mine would create 10 million jobs and yours would lose us three and a half million jobs and explore [......]" [the NBC News Channel,22:59] Simple interruption in the data above is made by Trump to interrupt Hillary and use it for the function of floor-taking. When Hillary states her argument about how to increase job opportunities for American people, Trump jumps in to interfere. Before she finishes her argument, Trump seizes the floor to win his own argument. When interrupting, Trump does not change the topic; instead, he grabs the turn, although Hillary is still speaking.

Trump's Cooperative Function of Interruptions Clarification
Trump's clarification while interrupting can be seen in Excerpt 8. The above instances illustrate Trump's clarification used to interrupt Hillary's explanation about increasing new jobs. This interference happens when Hillary explicates her position that she knows how to create new job opportunities for the US citizens. Alas, in the middle of her explanation, Trump intrudes her to clarify that whatever Hillary has attempted for 30 years or 26 years, she has not provided new jobs. This example is a simple interruption that functions to give clarification.

Hillary Clinton's Function of Interruption
The only function of interruption performed by Hillary Trump is disagreement which falls into intrusive function. It does not show any collaboration, in fact, it intrudes into the speaker's turn to show disagreement. Afterall, the amount is not big; it is only 9% of all disagreement in the presidential debates Disagreement function of interruptions is apparent in the abovementioned data when Hillary is performing a simple interruption. When Trump puts his arguments about the economic policy of trade, and while he is still conveying his statements, Hillary interrupts him. Hillary interferes Trump to expose her disagreement with Trump by uttering "No." It means that what Trump has said before, "Who called it gold standard of trades he said it's the finest deal you ever seen," is rejected directly by Hillary through her interruption, "No."

DISCUSSION
The aforementioned results of the study indicate that Donald Trump dominates the interruptions in the presidential debates (91%). The results of the current research support Lakoff's (1975) and Zimmerman and Wests' (1975) statements that men interrupt more frequently than women. In this case, Trump makes too much interruption that reflects his ambition. His competition-oriented strategy shows that he wants to be seen as smart as he offers solutions to almost every problem. Different from Trump, Hillary avoids interruption; therefore, her interruption was only 9% (7 occurrences). She gives more opportunities to her interlocutor to deliver his opinion. Hence, Hillary's strategy of communication is more collaboration-oriented.
The results of the current research also nullify Xu's (2009) accounts that seem to wipe away the existing stereotype that men tend to be competition-oriented, while women tend to be collaboration-oriented. She argues that although both women and men have different strategies in communication, they both use dominance-related and rapport-related interruptions.
This, however, is completely different from Faizah and Kurniawan's (2016) research reporting that female speakers show higher frequency of interruptions than the male ones in Mata Najwa talk-show. The reason why the current research results in different finding from that of Faizah and Kurniawan (2016) might come from the fact that presidential debates where male speakers are more dominant compared to the female speakers are more formal compared to Mata Najwa. Another possibility is that the difference in the context of the society may cause the difference in the male/female domination. In the context of the American society, previously women were not allowed to vote. The legal right of women to vote nationally was given in the US in 1920, 144 years after its Independence Day in 1776. Dissimilar to this, Indonesian women's suffrage has been given since early of its independence. The history of both countries informs us the difference in their treatment to women. Since women in Indonesia are treated equally since the beginning, this might cause freedom for Indonesian women, including freedom for speech. The domination of female speakers in conversation in Mata Najwa talk-show might root from this history.
Another possibility is related to the host of the program. In the US presidential debate, the hosts are mostly male--the first and the third debates were hosted by male speakers and the second was hosted by a male and a female anchor. Meanwhile, in Mata Najwa the host is Najwa Shihab, a female one. There's a possibility that the female speakers are more comfortable in Mata Najwa that makes her has so high self confidence that encourages her to interrupt more. Meanwhile Hillary Clinton was mostly with male hosts that might cause her to feel alone without any accompaniment from the same sex partner in conversation. However, this reiteration needs data and further clarification from the upcoming research.
The research findings show that Butting-in Interruptions were most frequently applied by both Trump (65%) and Clinton (5%) during the presidential debate, which means 71% of Trump's interruption and 57% of Hillary's interruption. This shows that both of the presidential nominees were attempting to control another candidate or take the turn. However, they were ignored by each other. As Ferguson in Beattie (1982) stated that Butting-in Interruptions occur when the intruder tries to interfere the first speaker and grab the floor, yet, the interruptee does not stop his or her utterances and ignores the interrupter. This also means that Trump, who has higher Butting-in Interruption, has tried to interrupt more frequently but he was also ignored more often by Hillary. This may show that Hillary has relatively higher mental strength compared to Trump that makes her do not easily surrender to Trump's attack through the interruption. This is different from Larasati's (2014) research where Butting-in Interruption has the lowest frequency. This can be understood very easily since Larasati's data were taken from a TV series with situational comedy as the genre in which the same characters appear in several episodes with different funny stories. The background of the story is a big family in which every member has an intimate relationship. Therefore, each of the characters does not have any intent to win any arguments. What is in the mind of each character is to create humor, not to win an argument nor attack the opponents.
With regard to function of interruption, there are three functions of interruption which were performed by Donald Trump, those are disagreement 54%, floor taking 26%, and clarification 11%. Whereas, Hillary only has one function that is disagreement (9%). More functions applied by Trump just show that he tried hard to attack Hillary through both intrusive and collaborative interruptions. Meanwhile, Hillary only interrupted when she is in disagreement with Donald.
Looking at the function of disagreement more carefully, the researchers conclude that the highest function of interruption during the presidential debate is the disagreement function. It can be seen from the precentage of the disagreement function of their interruptions, Trump 54% and Hillary 9%, they expressed their disagreement to oppose the opponent's opinion. As Kennedy and Camden (1983) explain that in disagreement function of interruption, the interrupter intrudes the conversation because he or she disagrees with what the speaker has mentioned and then s/he offers his or her own position. Thus, both presidential candidates were attempting to refute the opponent's account and keep his/her own contention.
The data also inform us that greater intrusive interruptions were significantly apparent in the presidential debates than the collaborative one. This is similar to Li's (2001) study in which when Canadian doctors serve Chinese patients, the occurrences of intrusive interruptions were substantially larger than the cooperative interruptions. The use of intrusive interruptions which was much bigger than in the Canadian doctor-Canadian patient situation, may be caused by the double status asymmetry--doctor-patient status and majority-minority category diversities. In the case of Trump's greater intrusive interruptions (80%) compared to Hillary's (9%), gender might play a role here. As a male candidate, Trump might think that he has more power to interrupt Hillary who is a female speaker. The result of this study also supports Putra's (2016) finding reporting that Trump shows his power relation to other people by employing discursive strategy which delegitimizes other people, ethnic groups, and politicians by abusing, underrating or showing prejudice to others in order to aggrandize himself.

CONCLUSION
The current research reports that Trump displays substantially the biggest portion of the interruptions, while Hillary uses them in a very small number. While Trump employs all types of interruptions, Hillary just applies Simple and Butting-in Interruptions. The fact showing that both are alike in the use of Butting-in Interruptions in the sense that this type of interruptions is the biggest number in each of the candidates just highlights that both do not want to be interfered while delivering their argument. Furthermore, the function of most interruptions are intrusive functions, most of which are performed by Trump. This shows that Trump as a male candidate might feel more powerful than Hillary and that he does not want to be out-powered by Hillary Clinton who is a female candidate.